> On 5 Jul 2021, at 15.11, [email protected] wrote: > I think it would be extremely helpful and important to define the term > “Traditional” in a way that is accepted worldwide.
> I believe there should be something to clearly state that traditional models > are in the creative commons if this is the case. This is my personal > understanding. The starting point would be a post to multiple origami > platforms to get general input. Then, have origami societies worldwide come > to an agreement and share a clear document with an in-depth description with > examples included that the community would support. Thoughts? > > Please send feedback to the form at https://origamimuseum.org/contact/, if > you do not want to send feedback to this list. I believe the most extensive attempt at collecting "traditional models" is that of David Petty: http://britishorigami.info/academic/davidpetty//index.htm. For all I know, he is right about that list, and the full list of "traditional models" should be much longer. My humble understanding of a "traditional model" is this: A model which is at least somewhat widespread and which usually has no known designer. Always simple or intermediate models. Usually older models, but surely new models over time may get this status as well. And always de facto in the open domain. That is a pretty vague definition, and given how many simple un-attributed models you see diagrammed on the internet, in books (even by Yoshizawa) and on packages of origami paper, it is frustratingly difficult to judge whether a given model is "traditional" or copyrighted under free use conditions or in some other way free access, or if the model is in fact copyrighted by someone who does not want it in the public domain. I do not believe that you can vote a model to be traditional, and we don't have a forum or super-organisation with the authority to declare them so. The best you may hope for is to do like David Petty did: put up a public list of diagrams of models that presumably and in good faith are traditional models. If somebody claims a model does not belong on the list, that that there is in fact a known designer, they have to provide proof, and the site owner must take them down if the proof is deemed sufficient. Of course, the devil is hidden in the terms "good faith" and "take them down"; which we all know from sites distributing pirated books, music, designs or other art works. This is where recognised origami organisations might have a natural role: They have the network to make a bona fide search for if a model is traditional or not, and they have the organisation to maintain the list if claims for the opposite are made. On the other hand, the more streamlined and formal the organisation is, the higher risk there is that somebody might bring them to court (probably an American one) over some more or less dubious claim. So such an organisation might have to fill such a list of "traditional models" pretty defensively. Finally, note that "creative commons" does not mean "free access". It is a set of copyright declarations ranging from "CC by" (do whatever you want as long as you attribute the designer) to "CC by nc nd" (must attribute, only non-commercial use, no derivatives). See https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/. The "CC by nc nd" is pretty close to the "fair use" of standard copyright conditions. By this range you might believe that "CC" in itself would mean "do what you want", even without attributing the model, but I find it likely that the Creative Commons organisation deliberately omitted that option from their list of standard licenses. The "nd" condition is not clear. When is a model a new model and when is it a derivative? What if you make a trivial change of the tradtional crane, is that a new model that can be copyrighted, or is it only a derivative? Robert Lang had a court case concerning use of his crease patterns by another artist which as I understand concerned the question if that art was a derivative (and if such are allowed) or an original art work in itself. Best regards, Hans Hans Dybkjær papirfoldning.dk Society: foldning.dk
